Originally posted by tibbitts My point was that it's more important to have a good copy than to worry about the theoretical performance differences between the 50-200 and 55-300.
You're probably right. My 50-200 isn't a bad lens, it's just that my 55-300 is quite a bit better. So much so that I haven't used the "little brother" the last couple of years, and now that I have the 18-135 wr as well I don't really have any use for the wr part of the 50-200 either.
The 18-135 is another very nice lens, btw.